Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Okay, so it makes me happy to sit with Moose and pet him, especially if I'm sick or had a bad day. How is this situation which I'll "having a pet", any different than what an emotional support animal does?

Okay, so it makes me happy to sit with Moose and pet him, especially if I'm sick or had a bad day. How is this situation which I'll "having a pet", any different than what an emotional support animal does?

None.

Pssssst. It's just a sneaky way of getting Moose on the plane and in your lap and not in a carrier.

I have definitely noticed in the last two years or so a huge increase in the number of dogs in airports and on planes. I don't mind little ones kept in a small case and tucked under the seat in front of the owner, but these are larger dogs (although I've not seen any German shepherds).

Incidents like these are probably inevitable, and lawyers for the victim will definitely be suing Delta as the big pocket defendant.

If I had not been following the discussion in the pit bull thread I would have assumed you were being satirical. But this post is completely consistent with your repeated and vocal advocacy of the position that dogs only attack because of the failures of their owners or of their victims.

According to his legal team, Jackson, who was traveling from Atlanta to San Diego, approached his window seat and found passenger Ronald Kevin Mundy, Jr. sitting it the middle seat with his dog in his lap. Witnesses reported seeing the approximately 50-pound dog growl at Jackson not long after taking his seat.

The dog continued acting in a "strange manner," according to Jackson's lawyers, and then the growling increased. The dog then lunged for Jackson's face and starting biting him, lawyers said.

Mundy pulled the dog off Jackson, but the dog broke free from his owner and attacked Jackson again, according to his lawyers, so severely it caused punctures through his lip and gum.

"The dog viciously mauled Marlin for thirty seconds and repeatedly broke away when people tried to pull it back. There was so much blood on the plane that they had to change out three seats before they could put the plane back in use," said Massey.

Jackson's attorneys said he was severely injured and had to receive 28 stitches. Lawyers also released photos Thursday showing the gash on Jackson's face.

Witnesses told Fox 5 in Atlanta that Jackson was already seated in his window seat when there was a cause for concern early on.

"The gentleman in front of the victim and the dog owner indicated that he had cause for alarm,” said passenger, Bridget Maddox-Peoples. “The dog had been growing at this gentleman and the gentleman said, 'Is this dog going to bite me?' three times and there was no effort to remove the dog off the plane."

Maddox-Peoples was headed to her seat when she heard barking and a cry for help.

"There was a call for help,” Maddox-Peoples said. “You could hear dog growling and a bark and someone screaming, 'I need help there is a medical emergency.'"

Maddox-Peoples said the next thing she saw was Jackson leaving the plane. She said he had a bloody cloth over his face with blood covering his eyes, nose, cheeks and shirt.

The situation escalated over enough time that an alarmed passenger was able three times to express a fear of being bitten and the owner refused to act until his dog finally attacked and mauled someone. This situation is entirely on that owner.

There's a sign on the door of the supermarket here just across the Strait from BC saying the same thing so apparently that's the law here as well. Doesn't stop the morons from bringing them in. One crapped on the floor in the pharmacy line while I was there.

The situation escalated over enough time that an alarmed passenger was able three times to express a fear of being bitten and the owner refused to act until his dog finally attacked and mauled someone. This situation is entirely on that owner.

The airline? The dog's owner was clearly a colossal twat, but how could an airline allow such a situation to develop?

Atlanta to San Diego is no short hop and the passenger is supposed to control a 50lb dog that's on his lap for a couple of hours? The owner might well need a pee or poop - who manages the dog then? What if the dog needs a pee or a poop? We transported a dog by air across Europe (he was in a crate in the hold) and I asked this very question of the handlers - the dog was appropriately denied food and water so that he'd be unlikely to soil the crate. Did the airline impose any such controls in this case? I seriously doubt it. Delta deserve everything I hope they get.

__________________"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

There's a sign on the door of the supermarket here just across the Strait from BC saying the same thing so apparently that's the law here as well. Doesn't stop the morons from bringing them in. One crapped on the floor in the pharmacy line while I was there.

Did you rub his face in it? The owner, i mean

__________________I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets

I just flew Delta last week and a lady on the other side of the aisle had a dog with her. It just sat quietly in her seat with her and caused no fuss at all. It was one of those little wuffly dogs though, with curly hair. I don't think it could successfully savage a hamster, much less a human.

Apart from your last sentence, which is puerile, you're on the right track. Without even mentioning Mr Jackson, who would be at fault if someone brought a rattlesnake onto a plane and it attacked someone? Would it be the rattlesnake (which must of course be taken away and killed immediately for its crime) or would it be the fool who brought it onto the plane, curled it over his knee and ignored it when it rattled for ten minutes at the bloke sitting next to him?

Don't rush the answer now, it's a tricky one.

Thanks for the warning but I think I can handle it. Here's my try at it:

Bringing a potentially dangerous snake into this situation would be wrong and someone being bitten would be the fault of the owner. I would not hold it against the snake if it acted as one might expect a snake to act. I would not have it killed if there was another way of making certain it could not bite another person.

Similarly bringing a potentially dangerous dog into this situation was dangerous and the other passenger being bitten was the fault of the owner. I don't hold it against the dog and I would not have it killed if there is any other way of making certain it could not bite another person.

I don't think we disagree here: I'm not blaming the dog, I am blaming the owner. I think we both agree that this dog was dangerous and it was the responsibility of the owner to realize that and to not put the dog in a position where it could place any one else in danger. Where we disagree is if some dogs are inherently more like rattlesnakes than like garter snakes, that this danger can in part reflect their genetics, and that as a result their owners must take the breed, of their dog into consideration when evaluating its potential danger.

[added in edit] of course I am ignoring that most dog owners (and I include myself given my past dog ownership) view their dogs as having a "soul" a self-awareness and an personality far different from how we see snakes. We attribute positive actions as being to their credit. "Dog saves child from drowning" headlines focus on what a good dog he/she was. So must there not also be bad dogs? If saving a child from drowning is a sign of being a good dog, isn't biting an airline passenger a sign of being a bad dog? But that rapidly becomes a philosophical discussion that I would prefer to avoid

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

Personally I think that this is one of those circumstances where one person's rights and needs conflict with those of others and a practical compromise is the only fair solution.

And I cannot stress enough how much that this just isn't an option.

The whole "Service Animal" thing (at least here in the states) has turned into a damn near cult level fervor.

The idea that it is 100%, across the board, no exception totally unreasonable to question the validity of a service animal in any scenario regardless of the context and environment and the idea that it is brutally unfair to expect service animals to go through any sort of vetting, training, registration or identification process of any kind is pretty well established here. I cannot over-stress the hostility that even bringing this idea up will bring you.

People treat any questioning of a service animal's legitimacy as a legit, directed attack on the person in question and disability as a concept.

The absolute only standard a lot of people with accept is "I can take any animal I want anywhere I want as long as I call it a service animal."

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

The whole "Service Animal" thing (at least here in the states) has turned into a damn near cult level fervor.

The idea that it is 100%, across the board, no exception totally unreasonable to question the validity of a service animal in any scenario regardless of the context and environment and the idea that it is brutally unfair to expect service animals to go through any sort of vetting, training, registration or identification process of any kind is pretty well established here. I cannot over-stress the hostility that even bringing this idea up will bring you.

People treat any questioning of a service animal's legitimacy as a legit, directed attack on the person in question and disability as a concept.

The absolute only standard a lot of people with accept is "I can take any animal I want anywhere I want as long as I call it a service animal."

Oh, I absolutely agree with you that this is how things appear to be at present and I do not understand how it came to be that way. A demand for the right to have an emotional support animal supersedes all else: other people's rights, safety, etc. I was proposing a solution- not describing the current situation. Nor am I confident that such a solution can ever be implemented.

Although much of this originates in the USA with the Americans with Disabilities Act, many of the provisions of the ADA have been subjected to logical tests of "reasonableness." There are provisions that have been abused, and sometimes the accommodations required appear to many to be over the top, but it is recognized that there are limits and compromise is important. The ADA does not require a blind person be hired as an airline pilot. Yet somehow with emotional support animals there are practically no limitations or compromises permitted.

The airline? The dog's owner was clearly a colossal twat, but how could an airline allow such a situation to develop?

Because the airline was prohibited from questioning passengers' assertions that their Emotional Support Animals provided a necessary service and needed to be in the cabin with the passenger. I thought I had mentioned that earlier.

I contract for an airline. We will accept a credible statement by a passenger that their animal is there for emotional support, provided it's a cat, dog, bird or domestic rabbit.

That said, we won't allow any animal, even a legit service dog, in the emergency exit row, so there is at least some room for reason and logic.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

The problem is to be a service dog, the dog has to be trained to provide a specific service. Seeing eye dogs, for example, are highly trained and are fairly easy to spot real ones from fake ones. Emotional support animals are determined by the owner. The dog doesn't haven't to do anything besides exist. The benefit is determined by the owner. They don't need to be trained. And, in fact, there is no way to train them for the non-specific task of making someone feel better.

I contract for an airline. We will accept a credible statement by a passenger that their animal is there for emotional support, provided it's a cat, dog, bird or domestic rabbit.

That said, we won't allow any animal, even a legit service dog, in the emergency exit row, so there is at least some room for reason and logic.

Aren't like 1 out of 3 people allergic to cats? That's nasty.

People will take advantage no matter what it is. I'd say 9 out of 10 of these types of "service" animals you see are BS.

I have a friend who does this with her dog sometimes. I adore this dog but I don't like when she does it. The dog has been very well trained and behaves as she should, basically laying under the table in a restaurant practically motionless the whole time.

One time she started howling in a restaurant when an ambulance drove by with its siren on. That was funny.

People will take advantage no matter what it is. I'd say 9 out of 10 of these types of "service" animals you see are BS.

I have a friend who does this with her dog sometimes. I adore this dog but I don't like when she does it. The dog has been very well trained and behaves as she should, basically laying under the table in a restaurant practically motionless the whole time.

One time she started howling in a restaurant when an ambulance drove by with its siren on. That was funny.

Hell if I know. I hear a lot of people claim to be, but I suspect it's a similar thing to people saying they're allergic to gluten but have no idea what Ciliac's disease is.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

Third- students with special needs at my university also can obtain special test taking allowances on request. But they must notify the instructor well in advance (days or weeks) to allow the time required to arrange the special accommodations. My university has, after some early confusion, worked this out pretty well.

Finally of course it is easy to look like an evil ogre in this type of situation, isn't it? It's almost like being against puppies... well, actually it is very much like being against puppies (although more grown up).

Yes to everything you said. The challenges in this case were compounded because we're 1) dealing with minors; 2) off-campus. Normally students with special accommodations just take the exam at the testing center.

It's also difficult to get students to agree he's a nuisance because who wants to be known for evicting big brown eyes? It's like getting rid of Baby Groot. Another instructor had the same group on the T/R block. I asked students if the dog whimpered in his class. They said he did but the prof. "just ignored it" (whereas I "clapped back" -- so I'm obviously the ******* here).

I should also add that after I talked to the dean, Clayton started wearing a pink vest: "Service Dog -- Do Not Pet." What a jerk. The only day she didn't bring him was when it rained. What a bunch of ****.

__________________April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

Yes to everything you said. The challenges in this case were compounded because we're 1) dealing with minors; 2) off-campus. Normally students with special accommodations just take the exam at the testing center.

It's also difficult to get students to agree he's a nuisance because who wants to be known for evicting big brown eyes? It's like getting rid of Baby Groot. Another instructor had the same group on the T/R block. I asked students if the dog whimpered in his class. They said he did but the prof. "just ignored it" (whereas I "clapped back" -- so I'm obviously the ******* here).

I should also add that after I talked to the dean, Clayton started wearing a pink vest: "Service Dog -- Do Not Pet." What a jerk. The only day she didn't bring him was when it rained. What a bunch of ****.

Sigh. Have all these years of my influence done nothing for you? The solution is simple: send the student with the dog to a meeting with the dean, and linger nearby and surreptitiously blow on a dog whistle repeatedly. Dean will see the dog in action and agree its behavior is disruptive.

Sigh. Have all these years of my influence done nothing for you? The solution is simple: send the student with the dog to a meeting with the dean, and linger nearby and surreptitiously blow on a dog whistle repeatedly. Dean will see the dog in action and agree its behavior is disruptive.

Way too much work. Surreptitiously feed the dog several 7-11 burritos before the meeting. Disrupted.

Because the airline was prohibited from questioning passengers' assertions that their Emotional Support Animals provided a necessary service and needed to be in the cabin with the passenger. I thought I had mentioned that earlier.

Yes, I didn't appreciate just how much this 'emotional support' thing had become a de facto right. Seems to me that passengers in that situation should be obliged to present some kind of evidence of their need, though even then there's something wrong when pigs are allowed in the cabin and end up squealing and crapping on the floor, let alone stressed dogs chewing at other passengers.

Do these owners buy tickets for their animals? If not then it looks like an easy way to get free transport for the animal.

__________________"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Yes, I didn't appreciate just how much this 'emotional support' thing had become a de facto right. Seems to me that passengers in that situation should be obliged to present some kind of evidence of their need, though even then there's something wrong when pigs are allowed in the cabin and end up squealing and crapping on the floor, let alone stressed dogs chewing at other passengers.

Do these owners buy tickets for their animals? If not then it looks like an easy way to get free transport for the animal.

Nope, service and support animals ride free.

There may be some change in the wind. I do not know why OP decided to post this rather old story now; but the reason it may have just come to their attention is because two days ago, I've just found, Delta announced it is changing its rules regarding service animals. They will now begin requiring veterinary health certificates, and owners of "emotional support" animals specifically will be required to sign a statement pledging that their animal has been behavior-trained and is not aggressive. I don't know how much this will honestly help anything, since all they require is this signed statement and not any kind of certificate from a formal trainer or anything, which likely nobody is going to think twice about signing - I doubt such a measure would've stopped the former marine from bringing the dog that mauled that other passenger on board for instance. But, it's a step in the right direction insofar as it's the beginnings of a little regulation where before now there was none.

The original rules regarding animals like these were made well before "emotional support animal" was a role; they were meant to apply to service dogs highly trained to assist humans with actual disabilities, like blindness or deafness and the like. The rules preventing establishments from blocking such dogs were intended to protect these disabled persons from being put through the wringer or facing unreasonable demands for documentation and such from people who just didn't want the dogs around. People have absolutely been taking advantage of those protections in order to bring their pets with them simply for the sake of having them along. Every pet, essentially, is an "emotional support animal" when it comes down to it; there is now no functional difference between animals whose owners agree to have them ride in the cargo hold per the pet policy and animals whose owners assert a right to have them ride in the cabin, save the chutzpah of said owner.

Hell if I know. I hear a lot of people claim to be, but I suspect it's a similar thing to people saying they're allergic to gluten but have no idea what Ciliac's disease is.

I couldn't speak as to numbers, but there is a specific protein in car dander that is known to commonly cause a severe reaction in humans. I've had such an allergy since childhood, leading to our family cat having to move next door. During my childhood this allergy actual lead to me being hospitalised once or twice (I know that sounds suspiciously vague, but my asthma put me in an oxygen tent so many times that I don't remember which attacks were triggered by the allergy and which by childhood infections).

As an adult I'm not so badly effected, but there are problems, I had about two weeks of problems on one occasion after changing jobs, breathing difficulties, itching rash, major eye irritation, before I realised that my predecessor had been a cat owner. Swapping my chair with someone else's solved the problem.

Most other animals don't effect me, I've owned rats, degus, gerbils and have a dog, but being sat next to a cat in an enclosed space of a period of hours would cause me symptoms that would certainly last for a couple of days of more. I wouldn't end up in hospital (well, so long as there was no other issue that prevented me accessing inhalers anyway), but I would be badly discomforted and might even be put out of action for a few hours.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Ducking android autocorrect! (Not an attempt to avoid autocensor, an actual example of how it changes what I type)

Half joking aside. I've just got a Kindle Fire tablet and, while I'm generally pleased with it the autocorrect on their implementation is even worse than standard. It changes correctly spelt words to other correctly spelt words that it's sure you actually meant.

Sigh. Have all these years of my influence done nothing for you? The solution is simple: send the student with the dog to a meeting with the dean, and linger nearby and surreptitiously blow on a dog whistle repeatedly. Dean will see the dog in action and agree its behavior is disruptive.

I need to work harder on internalizing your dark methods, cultivating the devil inside.

__________________April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

Re: snakes. I've seen plenty of people in stores who have ball pythons. That has never bothered me as they are very passive and only 5 feet long, but I'm sure it bothers some people. However some people want no MF snakes on the MF plane.

Re: dogs. It bothers me that there is no way to secure the dog. I mean, as in a seat belt. If the dog is in the hold are they in kennels that can be strapped down?

My dog was supposed to be a miniature dachshund and I did indeed plan on being able to fit her in a crate under the seat. She grew well past mini size and I'm not sure she would fit under the seat. I don't think I'd let her sit on my lap. She doesn't ride unsecured in my car and I wouldn't do it on a plane. Also, she is trained to zone out when she's in a crate. So for a long flight I'd probably put her in cargo.

She's afraid of very young children and when afraid she acts aggressive - e.g. nippy.

Lizards: I did a news story once on a guy who claimed his iguana saved his life. He had sleep apnea and the lizard would whip his tail around of the owner's breathing stopped. That's the only time I ever made the National Enquirer! A few months later he was kicked out of Wal-Mart and I did a story on that. Wal-Mart officials were adamant that a service animal could not be an iguana.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.